cnszsun Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=skjxxhaj98xdxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPps-1♣-ps-1♥ps-1♠-ps-??[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Wow, a Michael Sun bidding problem that doesn't involve the 5 level :P. Anyway, yes, 2♠ is enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Close, if 1♠ is forcing (non-standard) I may bid 3. After all this 7.5 modified ltc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Close, if 1♠ is forcing (non-standard) I may bid 3. After all this 7.5 modified ltc. I don't see how 1♠ is forcing or not is relevant, if partner has a non-minimum he will bid again over 2♠, so we are only worried about how our bid does opposite a minimum opener. Anyway, I disagree that this is close, but I've been wrong before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 2S I can't construct a minimum hand for pard where 4S is cold and opps are silent. So, no invite for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Close, if 1♠ is forcing (non-standard) I may bid 3. After all this 7.5 modified ltc. I don't see how 1♠ is forcing or not is relevant, if partner has a non-minimum he will bid again over 2♠, so we are only worried about how our bid does opposite a minimum opener. My thought was, if 1♠ is nf then my 2♠ bid shows slightly more than the random 5 points. But OK, I would rarely pass a nf 1♠ with 4-card support and rarely raise a forcing 1♠ with 3-card support so the difference is small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Seems like a routine 3S bid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Seems like a routine 3S bid Yeah. CLEE?!?!? You are dangerously close to receiving a rare LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 3♠. Maybe there is a second part of this problem that involves the 5 level... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 3♠ looks normal to me too. While 1♠ isn't QUITE forcing, it can be a good hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Minimum 3♠ bid for me noting my ♥ could be useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 3♠ for me (closer at MP's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Sure looks like a 3S bid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I think 2 is enough, yes. No singeltons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmunte1 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Playing Check-back Stayman, you can have an easy 2♣-2♦-2♠ sequence, as long as you don't use this sequence for different purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Obvious 3S bid, unless playing Edmunte's method above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Looks like a close 3♠ to me.... LTC of 8, known fit.. if partner has any extras (ltc of 6) then game rates to be good... if he has a minimum, 3♠ might fail, but will usually be reasonably safe. Style helps a little... I would be more comfortable with 3♠ if 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand.. then it wouldn't be 'close', but most would bid up the line here.. and opposite a 4333 minimum, this could be a poor result...but so what? They pay a game bonus only when you bid game, not merely for making 10 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Obvious 3S bid, unless playing Edmunte's method above. If playing XYZ, can't you also have your cake and eat it too ? ie 2♣ relay to 2♦ then 2♠ is obviously an invite with 4 card support even leaving room for opener to reinvite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Playing Check-back Stayman, you can have an easy 2♣-2♦-2♠ sequence, as long as you don't use this sequence for different purposes. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nxw0016 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 My intuition is 2♠. But the more I think the more I can understand why 3♠ has supporters :) However... it's not vul. So I stick to 2♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Luckily, I play xyz in most partnerships. Thus I've got an easy 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ continuation to make an invite here (as Edmunte). Lacking that, I'd raise to 3♠. And I don't think it's close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.